If the prosecution have success in this case I can see the same thing happening all over.

They have been very open about modifying the rifles prior to testing to the extent of a witness saying that it was virtually his job to get them over power. The CPS appear to like it as well.

It will mean that any air rifle seized for testing can be modified until over power and the owner being held liable. It will in fact clarify the definition of "Capable" to the extent that no airgun could be considered "safe" to own unless "on ticket". I think we all know what that would mean.

If the prosecution have success in this case I can see the same thing happening all over.

They have been very open about modifying the rifles prior to testing to the extent of a witness saying that it was virtually his job to get them over power. The CPS appear to like it as well.

It will mean that any air rifle seized for testing can be modified until over power and the owner being held liable. It will in fact clarify the definition of "Capable" to the extent that no airgun could be considered "safe" to own unless "on ticket". I think we all know what that would mean.

ATB
Ray.

Click to expand...

So would i be right in thinking on the same basis as above that a police officer is entitled to force me to drink whisky then force me into a car and drive it so he can arrest me for drinking and driving because i own a car and am of a legal age to consume said drink (capable)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No he takes your car , puts a turbo on it then drives backwards and forwards pass a speed camera and says the car can speed you drive it so you are nicked, because you own it and have a licence.
So how many people in the UK will this effect

No he takes your car , puts a turbo on it then drives backwards and forwards pass a speed camera and says the car can speed you drive it so you are nicked, because you own it and have a licence.
So how many people in the UK will this effect

Click to expand...

seems to be only affecting back room engineers without RFD's or FAC's at the moment...

I'm sorry to let you know that Ian has been found guilty as charged. His barrister has lodged an appeal. He doesn't have to go to prison or pay a fine but he does have to report to a probation officer and do community service. Ian is bearing up remarkably well given what he has been through - thankfully he has a supportive woman by his side. I have passed on the good wishes from shooters on this forum.

The jury found Ian not guilty of the charges relating to my rifle - ie: selling a section one firearm to me.

He was found guilty of owning a section one firearm - the Phoenix. This is the hand-made prototype that the lab in Warrington completely ruined in the process of dismantling and modifying. The jury were shown what happened to the rifle in the lab, but obviously failed to grasp why this was wrong.

He was found guilty of possessing a Rapid that was over the limit. This was an action out of its stock that had been brought in for a calibre change from .177 to .22, which consequently put it over the limit. Ian was about to turn it down and put it back in its stock when he was raided. The customer had a firearm certificate, but this was a 12 fpe rifle that he wanted to keep that way.

Ian had already pleaded guilty of possessing live .22 bullets.

I understand that the UK airgun industry is alert to the dire implications of this case - Edgar Brothers will be funding the appeal.

here is a legit question has the test house got approval to modify firearms or weopens to firearms and i would have thought that they need the owners permission to modify said item owing to the fact that the police do not lawfully own the gun.